U.S. Const, Art 4, Sec 1, Cl 1:
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State.
U.S. Const, Art 4, Sec 1, Cl 2:
And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
By what general laws did Congress prescribe the Manner in which an act of secession be proved? What procedures were prescribed? To the best of my knowledge, no such procedures have ever existed.
What prescribed procedures, if any, were not followed?
An assertion that the failing of the secessionist states was procedural appears to concede that secession was lawful and constitutional. Were secession unlawful or unconstititutional, there could be no proper constitutional procedure.
Exactly my point. The South didn't allow the Congress to prescribe the general laws that would've proved the South's secession. If the Southern legislators would've went to the Congress and said they intended to secede and needed to enact the general laws to prove that secession, then there would not have been the messy separation if the Congress would've went along with it.
What prescribed procedures, if any, were not followed? An assertion that the failing of the secessionist states was procedural appears to concede that secession was lawful and constitutional.
It was not lawful because they didn't allow the Congress to prescribe the manner to prove it in accordance with Article IV, Section 1.
Were secession unlawful or unconstititutional, there could be no proper constitutional procedure.
I've never said secession was illegal. The manner in which the South seceded was illegal though. In any case, they started the war anyway, so they technically weren't taken to war because of secession, but because of an attack against the United States.